Social attitudes regarding sex and relationships

[GandK]

Per Gallup:

Men, Women Differ on Morals of Sex, Relationships

This poll covered social attitudes in the US regarding sexual/relationship topics, which we bump into regularly here, including polygamy and divorce.

The focus of this poll was the difference between the way men and women view these issues, which we don't discuss much, but its also easy to see society's overall POV on the topics listed.

[bradley]

Just stumbling on this now, but it's pretty interesting. I'd be curious to see the a larger breakdown than just men/women. i.e. age, marital status, sexual orientation, etc.

[jennypenny]

I always find attitudes toward polygamy interesting. In that poll, men and women were fairly accepting of sex and child-bearing outside of wedlock, but disapproved of polygamy. The poll results imply that if a guy sleeps around and gets a couple of women pregnant, a majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it. But if that same guy decided to marry those woman and commit to being legally responsible for them and any kids he fathered, then people would disapprove. I don't get it.

[GandK]

In that poll, men and women were fairly accepting of sex and child-bearing outside of wedlock, but disapproved of polygamy. The poll results imply that if a guy sleeps around and gets a couple of women pregnant, a majority of people wouldn't have a problem with it. But if that same guy decided to marry those woman and commit to being legally responsible for them and any kids he fathered, then people would disapprove. I don't get it.

I think marriage of any type is becoming less accepted. Dying out, perhaps. All of the young (late teens-late twenties) people I know - some of them practicing Christians, and most of them children of divorce - are either ambivalent or hostile to the idea of marriage. The overall attitude seems to be that marriage is antiquated. That it's a wonderful idea but it's unrealistic, because it's an institution that presupposes a social climate around the couple that no longer exists today, one that is supportive of the couple as an entity. And without that support, most marriages implode no matter what the couple does or believes. They're all very aware that there's now a great deal of social investment in breaking up marriages (example: the recent Ashley Madison scandal). They'd rather not make a promise that big at all than run the risk of breaking it like their parents did. I keep hearing, "If I decide I want kids, maybe I'd get married. But that's the only reason I'd do it."

WRT polygamy, I think that finding was more a reflection of the increasingly common attitude that people should be able to do whatever they please in their personal life as long as they're not physically harming someone in the process. And any social laws to the contrary are a reflection of somebody else's value system, and are therefore discriminatory in some way.

I guess I don't think those two findings are related to one another in that way. It's more, "if there's going to be marriage at all, then anyone who wants to marry should be able to do it in whatever configuration they please."

[jennypenny]

@K--Maybe I misread the test then (quite possible!). I thought the numbers represented how many people found a behavior morally acceptable, so I was reading it that people thought polyamory was ok but polygamy wasn't.

[jacob]

Something akin to an S-corp might be where things would optimally converge. You could make your own tribe if you wanted to.

[7Wannabe5]

Do most people think polygamy is inclusive of polyandry? I have twice entered into relationships with older, wealthier men who were still sharing significant financial/sentimental involvement (the women were still in love with them) with older women they were no longer interested in sexually/romantically. The ludicrous part of this being that I was already somebody who had previously been legally married for 19 years with adult children simultaneous to finding myself in something like the role of "younger wife" or "openly accepted mistress" or something like that in modern garb. I've also had my share of the multitudinous variety of other forms of relationship available in the modern world. Therefore, from my current perspective legal contract, financial support/involvement, domestic partnership/exchange, sentimental love, romantic love, sexual attraction etc., these all can run on different threads and people need to make self-aware decisions about their commitments throughout their lives. As in, " I would like a reliable, affectionate lover, but do I really want to share house-space with a grumpy old man? "

[jennypenny]

I guess I was thinking of a situation like a guy in my circle in Stepford. He has kids by two women, one his current wife and one his ex. The youngest of the ex and the oldest of the new wife are about the same age (oops), and occasionally they'll play against each other in baseball. He sits in the stands rooting for both teams. People sometimes find the situation awkward but mostly people find it amusing. If he decided to remarry the ex and move them all in together to reduce the craziness of the situation though, not only would people suddenly disapprove, he'd probably be arrested. Seems odd to me, especially since, as ffj said, we've started to redefine marriage. I get why people didn't like polygamy during the days of marriage=man+woman+life, but that's changed. Attitudes have changed along with it, except toward polygamy.

I don't really have an opinion one way or another on polygamy. I just find it interesting that people still consider that particular form of relationship out of bounds.

[7Wannabe5]

jennypenny said: I don't really have an opinion one way or another on polygamy. I just find it interesting that people still consider that particular form of relationship out of bounds.

Right. I think most people would also think it was out of bounds if I did more than my fair share to improve the heart health statistics of the 50-69 year old male population by taking on 3 husbands, even though I very well might be saving society approximately $237,000 in medical costs through my behavior.

[Chad]

It's a slow march through all the people that hate change with stuff like this. It's not so much that some of them really have anything against gay marriage, polygamy, etc. They just hate change in general. This is why when one generation logically accepts a change, it takes the next generation or so to actually make it a standard in society.

[henrik]

For a marriage to involve precisely two people is as closed-minded as marriages involving people of opposing sexes. Why shouldn't a marriage involve more than two people? Admittedly, it's highly unconventional, and the sheer psychology of mere trigamy is highly complex; you have to be special to make a polymarriage work. But special people are out there and they have made it work so why not codify this legally? And electronically?

Here, "legally" is actually the biggest stumbling block. I think it would be accurate to say that much more of the existing global "legislatosaurus" is implicitly or explicitly geared towards binary marriages than is geared towards heterosexual marriages. This is not a case of changing a few words in the laws. It would be a case of radically modifying a very large chunk of law. The possibility for legal loopholes and general lack of airtightness would be major. And all of this would be in order to accommodate the legal needs of an admittedly tiny minority of people. I think it should happen (in the places where it hasn't), and the arguments against it are no better than the arguments against gay marriage, but the obstacles are larger.

Gay marriage: the database engineering perspective

[Peanut]

I don't really have an opinion one way or another on polygamy. I just find it interesting that people still consider that particular form of relationship out of bounds.

I think polygamy just carries a lot of baggage, whereas polyamory does not. Don't we know that fundamentalist breakaway Mormon sects still practice it in highly dubious forms in parts of the U.S.? But maybe the west coast tech hippies will soon innovate polygamy 2.0.

I found some of those poll numbers shocking. A majority of people do not find teenage sex and pornography "morally acceptable?" Are they interpreting the question as "do you do this?" instead of "is it ok for someone to do this?" Or maybe they're just out of touch? E.g., these days there are so many exhibitionist couples out there, it seems like you're practically doing them a favor if you click on their video.

[jacob]

I'm very much of favor of replacing "marriage" with something akin to the S-corp and ultimately some better/more flexible. This would allow full flexibility whether you desire a nuclear family or your own tribe, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage. It's mainly to make the latter possible because the prevailing systems haven't recognized tribal benefits for a couple of millennia.

Heinlein's https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Moon_ ... h_Mistress include some interesting descriptions of alternative marriage forms. (I recommend the book!)

PS: I also realize that my stance is somewhat idealistic and that the majority prefers some kind of hard-set-in-stone model.

[unno2002]

Get the politicians and bureaucrats out of marriage, and the rest of private, individual interaction. If any sentient beings voluntarily want a “religious” service binding them before their deity, it’s their decision, which should have NO legal consequences outside of their chosen religion. No one outside that religion should be required to support it.

[Dragline]

I'm just imagining how the multiplication of spouses will lead to the multiplication of divorce lawyers. And pre-nups that look like partnership agreements with General Partners and Limited Partners. It might give "you're being kicked off the island" new meaning.

But I bet there's a reality TV show in there somewhere.

[Ego]

I'm very much of favor of replacing "marriage" with something akin to the S-corp and ultimately some better/more flexible. This would allow full flexibility whether you desire a nuclear family or your own tribe, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage. It's mainly to make the latter possible because the prevailing systems haven't recognized tribal benefits for a couple of millennia.

Is that a proposal to anyone in particular or are you just happy to see us?

[7Wannabe5]

Once you have been in a relationship or two that involved clear and fuzzy contracts that are not the usual, you will start thinking more clearly and creatively about contract moving forward. One of my older, much-wealthier ex-BFs had crafted a do-it-yourself legal divorce from the mother-of-his-3-sons that created a trust they both administered and left her as part-owner of the large property he lived on and loved. She lived on the side of a mountain in another state but would come stay with him in the winter when she was snowed out and visit with their children and grandchildren who lived nearby. They had been living under this arrangement for over 20 years when I met him. I might have been okay with this except for the minor detail that she was obviously still in love with him (kept youthful picture of him in football uniform on her bureau, nursed him through a major illness, sort of stalked me etc.) . While I was in relationship with this man, I was living in the house of my sister's ex-bf under a contract where I only paid minimal rent in exchange for doing the cooking. He was also a passive partner in the business I owned with my sister. At one point while I was living with this like-a-brother-friend, he “dated” a young, beautiful, very intelligent ex-stripper who was clearly schizophrenic , and one evening she hit him over the head with her purse, gashing his forehead open. The police became involved in this incident and had to arrest her for domestic violence because she was de facto living with him and me (aaargh.) I am including this incident to show all the levels of law and contract that can become involved in unconventional relationships. Between myself and the other 3 characters in my anecdote, there was a legal marriage, divorce, insoluble trust, joint deeds of property ownership, active business partnership agreement that was altered to passive business partnership agreement, landlord/tenant contract with sub-clause for exchange of domestic service, and de facto domestic/sexual contract that forced administration of applicable criminal law. What else? I also almost had a share-cropper type agreement with my male housemate and my wealthy BF tried to transfer funds to me by covering any bets I made on horseraces in his company(one of his sons was a semi-professional handicapper) , but that was a bit too close to getting directly paid for sex for my liking. Anyways, I had to break up with him because, for instance, he once said “(My bestest-friend-ex-trust-partner) asked me ‘Are you going to marry that girl?’” and I was 45 years old and had previously spent almost 20 years pretty much running the show and solo raising the kids in a legal “peer” marriage to my depressive/drunk, artist/hipster type ex-husband after spending my teen years helping my father care for my younger sisters because my mother was severely mentally ill, so I wasn’t entirely comfortable (understatement) with being permanently cast in the role of “baby doll” in relationship.

Anyways, I won’t even go into all the convoluted details of my extremely spelled out semi-legally enforceable Islamic Marriage contract with my recent-ex and his real estate dealings with a well-off-herself former f*ck-cuddle-buddy who became like a mother to one of his daughters, or the contract for monogamy I once had with an overt dominant while I was constantly in the company of a much younger man with whom I was trying to start a new business (making hypatufa lawn ornaments.) But, at this juncture in my life, I am seriously considering returning to my desire at age 21 to follow the model of the character of Nola Darling in Spike Lee’s movie “She’s Gotta Have It” and remain firmly centered in my own little self-sufficient domain, with black market barter the only form of exchange/contract between my lovers and me. Okay, maybe some 1099s…

[jennypenny]

I'm very much of favor of replacing "marriage" with something akin to the S-corp and ultimately some better/more flexible. This would allow full flexibility whether you desire a nuclear family or your own tribe, see e.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_marriage. It's mainly to make the latter possible because the prevailing systems haven't recognized tribal benefits for a couple of millennia.

Is that a proposal to anyone in particular or are you just happy to see us?

I see new possibilities for an ERE city.

[JamesR]

I like the S-corp idea. It could result in a significantly cleaner way to handle shared finances/assets and divorces. There could be vesting of some sort. The longer a person is in the corp relative to others, the larger the % they end up with. If someone wants to leave/divorce, they get bought out or similar.

There would be incentive to join the corp for security, while being straightforward to part ways later perhaps.

[bradley]

I think people are becoming more selective about whether they get married and who they get married to. At the same time, like you've all said, people are slowly become more open to the idea of alternative marriage arrangements or configurations. There's open marriages and polyamorous relationships, and more people are speaking out about them and kind of helping to shed the taboo — or at least show others that non-monogamy, for those who choose it, is a perfectly valid and acceptable thing to do. The legal part is a bit more...complex

When my wife told me she wanted to open our marriage and take other lovers, she wasn’t rejecting me, she was embracing herself... Happily for me, she was willing to talk about it, willing to ask if I’d be open to exploring other options. We opened a bottle of wine and started talking, and talking, and talking.

http://nymag.com/thecut/2015/07/what-op ... inism.html

Overall, Josh says sharing a life between three adults, rather than two, is not as kinky and complicated as some monogamous people might think. “The stuff in poly that’s difficult is not the sex,” he said. “It’s where the goddamn spoons get put away.”

http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archi ... sy/374697/